Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: .SET. in VISION

Expand Messages
  • thpr
    I m not sure it was approved in the formal sense, though the converter has long since removed it from data. See:
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 18, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm not sure it was approved in the formal sense, though the converter has long since removed it from data.

      See: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen_experimental/message/12755

      This was changed as part of the original token clean-up, way way back.

      TP.
    • Andrew
      No formal deprecation, docs still show it as valid, and we know it s in CMP sets. Looks like we dropped the ball on that. So basically it s a .CLEARALL for
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 18, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        No formal deprecation, docs still show it as valid, and we know it's in CMP sets. Looks like we
        dropped the ball on that.

        So basically it's a .CLEARALL for vision, removing all vision types and only 'SET'ting the one after
        as a the valid one?

        And we couldn't manage to covert to VISION:.CLEARALL <> VISION:NewVisionIntended
        ?

        2009 is 3 years ago, so what's done is done. I'm not sure in what instance I would have used it,
        considering I've been with the project a long time, and I've never used it, it can't come up that often.

        Unless Barak says otherwise, I'm fine with leaving it deprecated (it hasn't made waves since 2009),
        we can update the docs. But I would like to re-examine the converter and how it handles .SET, see if
        we can't offer up a solution or direct conversion to something that we know works.

        On 1/18/2013 8:01 AM, thpr wrote:
        > I'm not sure it was approved in the formal sense, though the converter has long since removed it from data.
        >
        > See: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen_experimental/message/12755
        >
        > This was changed as part of the original token clean-up, way way back.
        >
        > TP.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >

        --
        Andrew Maitland (LegacyKing)
        Admin Silverback - PCGen Board of Directors
        Data 2nd, Docs Tamarin, OS Lemur
        Unique Title "Quick-Silverback Tracker Monkey"
        Unique Title "The Torturer of PCGen"


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • rogerwllco
        I have only found it in the Feral Creature template in Savage Species. And after consulting the book, I think it might be wrong and should just be
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 18, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          I have only found it in the Feral Creature template in Savage Species.
          And after consulting the book, I think it might be wrong and should just be VISION:Darkvision (xx)
          The text mentions it doesn't replace the vision of the base creature if that's better, so I think the .SET. is wrong.
          I didn't have access to the book earlier, but I'm home now.

          I'm still busy converting, but I'm nearly done and I didn't find this in any other CMP datasets. I don't have all the CMP datasets, but I think most of them, at least for 3.5.

          I'm fine with it being deprecated or even removed, as VISION:.CLEAR|Darkvision (xx) does the same thing I think.

          I just noticed the documentation and converter not agreeing.

          Cheers,

          Adriaan Renting/RogerWilco


          --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, Andrew wrote:
          >
          > No formal deprecation, docs still show it as valid, and we know it's in CMP sets. Looks like we
          > dropped the ball on that.
          >
          > So basically it's a .CLEARALL for vision, removing all vision types and only 'SET'ting the one after
          > as a the valid one?
          >
          > And we couldn't manage to covert to VISION:.CLEARALL <> VISION:NewVisionIntended
          > ?
          >
          > 2009 is 3 years ago, so what's done is done. I'm not sure in what instance I would have used it,
          > considering I've been with the project a long time, and I've never used it, it can't come up that often.
          >
          > Unless Barak says otherwise, I'm fine with leaving it deprecated (it hasn't made waves since 2009),
          > we can update the docs. But I would like to re-examine the converter and how it handles .SET, see if
          > we can't offer up a solution or direct conversion to something that we know works.
          >
          > On 1/18/2013 8:01 AM, thpr wrote:
          > > I'm not sure it was approved in the formal sense, though the converter has long since removed it from data.
          > >
          > > See: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen_experimental/message/12755
          > >
          > > This was changed as part of the original token clean-up, way way back.
          > >
          > > TP.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > ------------------------------------
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          > --
          > Andrew Maitland (LegacyKing)
          > Admin Silverback - PCGen Board of Directors
          > Data 2nd, Docs Tamarin, OS Lemur
          > Unique Title "Quick-Silverback Tracker Monkey"
          > Unique Title "The Torturer of PCGen"
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • thpr
          ... Which - per the example in the link I provided in my late note - the converter should have done for you... though I would expect it to appear as:
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 18, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "rogerwllco" wrote:
            > I'm fine with it being deprecated or even removed, as VISION:.CLEAR|Darkvision (xx) does the same thing I think.

            Which - per the example in the link I provided in my late note - the converter should have done for you... though I would expect it to appear as:
            VISION:.CLEAR <> VISION:Darkvision (xx)

            > I just noticed the documentation and converter not agreeing.

            We need a Doc update, that's all. Thanks for letting us know so we can keep things tidy :)

            TP.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.